Gibbs Says He Doesn’t Know if White House Has Reviewed Constitutionality of Forcing People to Buy Health Insurance »
Posted By gunnyreef 2 weeks, 3 days ago in News
White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs said he doesn't know if White House lawyers have reviewed whether it is constitutional for the federal government to order individuals to buy health insurance.
Read Full Story at cnsnews.com »
1040 Views Share Story 256 Comments Report
Submitted By:
gunnyreef
I am a true conservative, i believe in limited government, low taxes, personal responsibility,states rights and personal freedom! I tow no party lines and ...
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 256 (view all)
-
54%
Klarissa2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
-
57%
Wolfie20072 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course, Obama hasn't considered the Constitutionality of forcing people to buy health care why would he? Obama thinks the Constitution doesn't allow the government to do enough for/to the people. Actually, I'm really surprised that Gibbs even knows about the Constitution.
Reply-
61%
Striker1012 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well most of us have watched Gibbs put on his pretty smile and lie, as in the BC.
Reply
And whatever years Obama spent becoming a "constitutional lawyer" was only so that he could find the ways to avoid it. The only thing he "thinks" is CHANGE, IOW just get ride of that nuisance Constitution! -
-
-
57%
DaneL2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
-
59%
PatrioticAmerican2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
80%
Tasine2 weeks, 2 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"What does constitutionality have to do with it?"
Reply
Are you kidding? Do you know what the Constitution is? Do you know what it is for? Are you American? That which is not constitution is not legal. And what you think is good, I think is horrible and despicable. I don't want government medical care, and I don't think it can LEGALLY be forced on me. And please do not mention the "opt out" option as it is a strawman - it will only be available in the beginning, but as soon as all insurance companies are run out of business by their own government, the only option will be government medicine. Shades of Colonel Klink!!
-
-
75%
insuranceman2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As long as you have health insurance who cares out about the millions that don't? Answer? Obama
Reply
Didn't we go through this already with forcing people to pay taxes being unconstitutional? Ask Wesley Snipes how constitutional that is!-
-
-
50%
Striker1012 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
According to the judge and juror Brooks on the following, it is voluntary. But if you file you have probably waived your rights under 4th and 5th amendments.
Reply
http://morality101.net/blog/category/taxstriking/
I believe withdrawing will break the collectivist backs. -
67%
Tasine2 weeks, 2 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Insurance man, if you truly believe Obama cares one whit for anyone but Obama you will believe anything. This bill is not about health care = it is about power, gaining more and more control over private lives. Eventually it leads to slavery.
Reply -
100%
vader822 weeks, 2 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
insuranceman, the constitution grants congress the power to levy taxes, and as much as I disagree with income tax in particular, the 16th amendment was added to mandate this. Section 1 article 8 outlines of the constitution outlines all of the powers of congress and NOWHERE in the text is there anything even remotely alluding to the power to force someone to buy health insurance.
Reply
-
-
92%
Will13132 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
well i'll agree with you not being FORCED to buy insurance. If you also include in the bill THAT NO DOCTOR OR NO HOSPITAL can be forced to treat you . until you can provide some way to pay the bill. .. .. OPT OUT DIE.. I have absolutely no problem with that..
Reply
opt out YOU CAN NEVER BUY INSURANCE.. and YOU WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICARE.. NO PROBLEM.
you cannot buy a warranty for you car AFTER you blow the engine..
I'm even propping you submission.-
59%
simonsez2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We all paid into Medicare since 1965, so as long as they are forced to pay into Medicare, it should be there at 65.
Reply
Nobody has paid in a dime on this new universal government plan and it will crash the infra-structure almost immediately. -
64%
beavith12 weeks, 3 days ago
-
-
-
-
64%
KISA452a2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It would certainly seem a reasonable consideration when planning something that will occupy congress and the country for months. Also, if you really want something that works, wouldn't you first want to find out if it is going to be legal at all? I would think that would be a major consideration...
Reply -
79%
NoWayMan2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
47%
KISA452a2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
-
-
100%
vader822 weeks, 2 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
NoWayMan, auto insurance is at the state level and as pointed out below is the result of a voluntary action(buying a car). The powers of Congress are explicitly outlined in section1 article 8 of the constitution, look it up, they have no authority to mandate any kind of insurance at the federal level.
Reply
-
-
88%
Bkumm2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Blah, blah, blah. Last time I checked, sending our troops to war without Congress declaring war is unconstitutional. Nobody seems to have a problem with that.
Reply
The way the healthcare system would operate is that if you chose not to have healthcare you would be fined an amount that is larger than paying for healthcare. At least that was the last proposal I heard. That is not unconstitutional. You can choose not to have healthcare, you just have to pay a fine.
It's very much like being forced to buy a permit from the city to have a parade. Your can still assemble. You just can't do it without permission.-
47%
simonsez2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
-
89%
truthiness2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
actually alot of us were upset about an illegal war. citing examples of other crimes doesn't excuse trying to commit a new crime.
Reply
telling me pay or be fined is not an option, its extortion.
I want healthcare reform. I also want the constitution to be obeyed. surely we can do both.
in fact, an easy way to do so would be to simply allow any one who desires to join medicare at any age, for a copay, and get rid of all this new bureaucracy they are trying to create.. simple and legal. -
100%
willottica2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The difference between car and health insurance is that there IS a way to opt out of paying car insurance. Don't buy a car. If there is not a way to opt out, then it is government force, which is not allowed by the constitution.
Reply
One might argue that they have the right to tax you and provide universal coverage, but I don't believe that they have the right to force you to buy insurance in another way.
If someone would rather die than buy health insurance, they should have that right. (And you shouldn't violate that right by treating them if they have refused to buy it.) -
100%
vader822 weeks, 2 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Blah, blah, blah. Last time I checked, sending our troops to war without Congress declaring war is unconstitutional. Nobody seems to have a problem with that."
Reply
I do have a problem with that, much as I have a problem with congress acting outside of the limits set up the constitution regarding the issue at hand.
-
-
83%
fsev412 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
President Obama is honoring the checks and balances in our government. It is not the duty of the executive branch to write the laws, Congress does that. The President may say (and he has) "This is what I'd like to see." but the final bill is up to congress. The president then has the option of signing it ot vetoing it. Likewise it is not up to the president to decide if a law is constitutional or not. That decision is up to our court system. If Congress writes an unconstitutional law and it is signed it is then up to the entity claiming the law's unconstitutionality to challenge it in court. That is how our three branch system of government is supposed to work.
Reply-
67%
Striker1012 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Challenging would be great if it could be heard for free within 10 days, and if everyone had standing, and if the judges would follow the constitution as is their charge.
Reply
But why does Obama and Congress not honor the constitution from the beginning?
They did swear to uphold it, you know. -
100%
willottica2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I disagree with you. The President's responsibility to uphold the constitution would require that he veto any piece of legislation he believes to be unconstitutional, just as Congress members and Senators similar oaths should require them to vote against such bills. (And not write them in the first place.) They can be excused if they make a mistake, but they are not exempted from considering the constitution because there is a check. The check is only supposed to step in if something goes wrong.
Reply -
-
-
100%
vader822 weeks, 2 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
fsev41, If something is blatantly and obviously unconstitutional, as in this case, it should not be pursued by the sitting president. Read section 1 article 8 of the constitution and you will see that mandating healthcare is entirely out of the realm of congressional authority.
Reply
-
-
100%
truthiness2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
50%
NoWayMan2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
-
100%
truthiness2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
actually that's not true. the constitution list the authorities specifically granted the fed, and lists certain authorities it specifically cannot have, and then in the tenth amendment specifically says that any powers not specifically given to the fed by the constitution belong to the states and the people.
Reply
therefore, the fed needs to demonstrate authority.
ex: I can demonstrate authority to regulate the insurance industry in the commerce clause.
but where does the authority derive to demand that the populace purchase product X?
-
-
100%
tadair9192 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
bush war & patriot act. liberals clamor to the constitution. GOP says what Constitution?
Reply
obama health care. GOP clamors to the constitution. liberals say what Constitution?
it's like watching the World Wrestling Federation. Loyal and true no matter what.
keep taking a blind eye, you group-thinking retards.
anybody that can read English knows it's not within the Constitution. -
100%
fjgalt2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Constitution is not a grant of power to a federal government that the federal government would interpret.
Reply
It was written in plain English so that every citizen could understand. It's unsurprising that some people today don't understand it as the literacy rate back then was higher.
The thirteen original countries met to delegate certain, limited, specified powers to the federal (not national) government. The philosophy was that the federal government acted by permission while the citizens acted by right and did not need any authorization.
The only purpose of governments (federal and state) were to protect the rights of the individual. Some people were concerned that those rights were not mentioned in the Constitution and were later added as Amendments.
The first eight Amendments were specific in guaranteed rights so the Ninth Amendment was added to tell the government that just because some of the rights are listed (enumerated) doesn't mean that people do not have others. (The first use of the Ninth Amendment was to support the people's right to use contraceptives.)
The Tenth Amendment was added to tell the federal government that any powers not delegated by the Constitution are reserved to the people and the states. -
100%
fjgalt2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In 1803, in the case of Marbury vs. Madison, the Supreme Court assumed the power to decide on the constitutionality of laws. This precedent worked well while the court conscientiously followed the literal meaning of the Constitution. It was in the 20th Century that the judges began "interpreting" the Constitution to suit their personal ideas about government.
Reply
In 1798, Jefferson and Madison had written the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions expressing the philosophy of "state nullification" in accordance with the Tenth Amendment to counter the federal government's unconstitutional Alien and Sedition acts. These resolutions are being cited again as faith in the Supreme Court as an objective body to decide on laws' constitutionality declines.
For more about the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0Vcjm3XiOk -
60%
tchef2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
-
100%
truthiness2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the US Constitution
Reply
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti... -
-
100%
truthiness2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
everything you just listed is a part of health insurance, except maybe disability insurance depending n how you are defining that.
Reply
the limits are on need, desire of the public, and authority.
since this insurance reform is designed to regulate an industry, the commerce clause applies to authority.
the need and desire has been determined by the American public in the last election when they overwhelming voted for democrats promising this reform.
-
-
100%
lalakersguy342 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
people auto insurance is mandated at the state level, not the federal level - and dunkirk, the constitution doesn't forbid the states from mandating insurance, it simply doesn't give the federal government the power to do so - also, as other people have said, you can opt out of auto insurance by not buying a car, you can't opt out of this mandate
Reply-
-
100%
Striker1012 weeks, 2 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
besides "opting out", one can (is able to) drive a car without a license and without insurance. The laws requiring either/both ensure nothing except more regulation by the great state of big brother. They cannot assure competence or good luck.
Reply
e.g having a contractor's license makes one "legal" but assures only that one has passed a test, not that the contractor is either honest or competent. Worse, people tend to rely on that label in the back window instead of prudence.
-
-
100%
canadianrancher572 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't know much about your constitution but from what I consider right or not right, it would not be right for the government to force people to buy health insurance, I have seen the automobile insurance issue raise but autos are used by the public in public places which is far different than what medical insurance is for.
Reply
After reading many of the comments I wonder if this is not the reason that we have the system that we have up here in Canada, the system is there and everyone pays for it and it is available for the citizens of the country to use. It is not a free system as is sometimes mentioned by people and if we address some of the issues that are raised from time to time, such as wait times, we know that we will have to pay for it with increased taxes. Do we consider it a subsidy for the poor, no because the poor would have to be looked after one way or the other.
This is just my opinion but I don't think that there was much thought or research done while trying to address the problem of the uninsured or the cost of buying insurance for many of those who face the cost as a major expense.-
100%
DMR2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My heart goes out to a lot of those people who can not pay for medical insurance, however as person who pays for health insurance and works long hours to pay for it...I have to believe in free choice. I would plow fields, break rocks and do almost anything to insure my family without the assistance of government. I know we (Americans) can provide assistance for those in need with less cost than the plan being put forth in front of Congress now. As a American, I am willing to help my neighbor as God had intended me too without crippling them. As far as the Consitution, those in elected positions need to remember that Americans will stand strong and make themselves heard during elections. I have no desire to wait for medical attention for myself or my daughter.
Reply
-
-
33%
purpleicon2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All I know is the next deadbeat I hear ( and I know about 4 of them ) who is a Republican blast national health insurance while they are trying to get free SSI disability and food stamps, I am going to tell them off. Stop blaming Reid and Pelosi and go after the lobbyists, the insurance companies, and surgeons who get those big, big beefy bonuses and pay outs at the expense of the middle class. At least this administration is trying to fix a very bad problem with healthcare.
Reply -
100%
truthiness2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
in response to Bkumm's question about whether or not this had actually been put into the bills:
Reply
When the Clinton administration considered such a plan in 1994, the Congressional Budget Office said it would be an unprecedented form of federal action.
“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States,’’ the agency said.
The House bill unveiled last week would set a tax penalty of up to 2.5 percent of adjusted income for those who do not have health insurance as of 2013.
The Senate Finance Committee settled on a maximum penalty of $750 per adult, or $1,500 for a household. A Senate version of the bill says the IRS could enforce the penalty only by subtracting it from any refund owed to the taxpayer.
In the past, Congress has used tax breaks to encourage certain purchases, such as buying a home with a tax deduction for the mortgage interest. However, critics of the health insurance mandate say they do not know of a similar example of a federal tax penalty for not buying a product.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/artic... -
100%
truthiness2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
this link is to the text of the bill
Reply
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3962/text
title V , subtitle A applies to this thread-
100%
truthiness2 weeks, 3 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
here it list the mechanism for taxing a person that doesn't have acceptable coverage and then, in the next section, lists the acceptable forms of coverage.
Reply
this list of acceptable forms of coverage is how the mandated purchase is created. because they list the types of insurance you can purchase, public or private, to avoid the tax fine. since they all require purchasing insurance.. they are mandating a purchase or punishing you.
this section of the bill, the purchase or fine, needs to be removed.
-
-
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.